Keith Richard Rossberg v. State of Minnesota, 874 N.W.2d 786

Background

In 2013 Rossberg was convicted by a Wright County jury of first–degree premeditated murder; this Court affirmed his conviction in 2014.
In June 2015 Rossberg filed a pro se postconviction petition raising multiple claims but admitting the petition was "submitted without factual support" to toll federal habeas deadlines.
Rossberg separately moved for 60 days’ additional time to file an addendum alleging factual support, citing limited prison law‑library access.
The same judge who presided at trial was assigned to the postconviction proceeding; Rossberg moved to disqualify that judge for cause, alleging (1) prior trial involvement and (2) prior employment with the county attorney’s office.
The postconviction court denied the disqualification motion (finding the employment allegation factually incorrect), denied the request for additional time, and dismissed the petition as procedurally barred (Knaffla) and factually unsupported. Rossberg appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postconviction judge should have referred a motion to disqualify to the chief judge	Rossberg: judge should be disqualified for cause because she presided at trial and previously worked with Wright County Attorney’s Office	State: judge properly denied disqualification; allegations unsupported and same‑judge postconviction proceedings are common	Error to rule instead of referring, but error harmless because allegations lacked factual support; no disqualification
Whether the judge’s prior role presiding at trial alone requires disqualification	Rossberg: prior trial involvement shows bias	State: prior trial involvement alone is not disqualifying in postconviction proceedings	Prior trial involvement alone is not a basis for disqualification
Whether Rossberg should have been given additional time to file an addendum alleging facts	Rossberg: limited law‑library access prevented including facts; requested 60 days	State: Rossberg did not explain why he could not allege facts; the petition must allege facts, not just law citations	Denial of additional time was not an abuse of discretion; petitioner failed to explain absence of factual allegations
Whether the postconviction petition should be denied for lack of factual allegation and procedural default	Rossberg: petition tolled habeas deadline and should be allowed to amend; claims meritorious	State: most claims procedurally barred under Knaffla and petition contains only conclusory allegations	Petition denied: claims procedurally barred or forfeited for lack of factual support; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rossberg, 851 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2014) (prior direct‑appeal decision; court declined to consider unsupported pro se claims)
Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013) (standard for judge disqualification and context for postconviction assignment)
Finch, 865 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. 2015) (motion to disqualify must be referred to chief judge; harmless‑error analysis)
Matakis v. State, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015) (postconviction petitions that list legal claims without factual allegations may be denied without granting amendment)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (claims known or discoverable on direct appeal are procedurally barred in postconviction)
Kaehler v. Kaehler, 18 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1945) (unsupported claims are forfeited absent obvious prejudicial error)
Reed v. State, 793 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for postconviction denial)
Carridine v. State, 867 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 2015) (petitioner bears burden to allege facts entitling relief)
Azure v. State, 621 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2001) (peremptory removal in criminal cases governed by criminal procedural rule; no automatic removal where judge presided at trial)